(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.11.28 2019나53189

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.11.28 2019나53189

배당이의

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of the judgment as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The actual contents of the tax are as follows, from 12th to 17th of the judgment of the first instance court.

“(1) On July 24, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with C as the broker of Licensed Real Estate Agent E with the content that the instant housing was leased from C by setting the lease deposit of KRW 32,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 100,000, and the lease term from August 16, 2017 to August 15, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). However, the lease agreement entered the term “40,000,000 won per month” as “the confirmation contract of the entire registered matters” and “the conditions that advance payment of KRW 5-month (2,00,000)” in the column of the special agreement. The actual effect of the judgment of the first instance court, “The amount of KRW 2,00,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000 won was added.”

The actual contents of the 4th judgment of the first instance court are as follows: "No. 4", "No. 12".

The actual substance is as follows, from 6th to 7th day of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment is as follows.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to this case, the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement in the presence of Licensed Real Estate Agent E, and deposited KRW 34,00,000 in total with the lease deposit and the two-year rent, and the Defendant is recognized as having actually resided in the instant house.

However, the following circumstances revealed through the above facts of recognition and each of the above evidence, i.e., the right to collateral security exceeding the value of the instant housing at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement (the statement No. 14 alone is insufficient to recognize the value of the instant real estate as KRW 120 million).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.02.13 2018가단239138

-대전지방법원 2015.02.12 2014나103310

-서울고등법원 2017.09.15 2016나2046336

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.20 2018나26184

-서울서부지방법원 2015.04.21 2015가단3375